factoryconnection:Farkage: It was money, not a weapon. You have to get the gun through a legal transfer. Anyone sending someone money is fine. Regarding anyone selling him the gun, who knows, but since he was found not giulty and still has a valid permit I'd say they are fine as well.

Excellent point, and they no doubt are completely familiar with their rights and how to limit liability in such situations. He may be a thug-slaying hero but they're not crazy, after all.

SithLord: Here's a proposal - George Zimmerman gets to shoot Ariel Castro and redeem himself in the media. Can we at least agree to that?

Ariel Castro was thoughtful enough to remind us all just how audacious someone can be to proclaim their innocence. With GZ there was limited evidence, a lot of gray area about aggression, so yeah even without hindsight his plea of "not guilty" makes sense. Ariel Castro is basically saying I didn't do any of that sh*t and that is completely mind blowing.

I never called him a hero either. 2 idiots tried to out-idiot each other. One of them won, but he didn't break the law.

Farkage:One of them won, but he didn't break the law.But there was not sufficient evidence to prove the case that he negligently contributed to the situation beyond reasonable doubt.

FTFY. In the end, all we are going to have from this situation is personal beliefs about what happened, because it is unreasonable to think that Zimmerman would be completely honest about this situation, especially when it would not benefit him to do so.

But I agree with you on the first part. Two lives are destroyed out of this. This should be a cautionary fable, NOT a hero-worship situation.

farkmedown:AngryDragon: IRQ12: Everyone should be appalled at the DoJ getting involved in this, regardless of your feelings on the topic.

Well...unless you want the DoJ to act on how many FB likes or twitter votes they get on an incident.

The only way the DoJ should be involved or FB/Twitter be a factor is if the DoJ is going to investigate all the death threats and seditious posts that went up on social media. Any takers on the likelihood of that happening?

In a society that truly respects freedom of speech and thought, "sedition" is a null word. Nominally, it is null in the USA.

I'm fairly certain that inciting others to engage in a criminal and violent riot against innocent citizens because you are unhappy with a lawful court decision is the very poster child for seditious activity. I'm also certain that every civilized nation on the planet defines it as such.

Farkage:I agree with you, just tired of the constant derp coming from the extremists on both sides. (I was directing that at the "If Zimmerman stayed home that day!!!!" crowd).

I'm tired of it from both sides, as someone who initially found himself in the "What a racist fark" camp thanks to his brother not helping things, and moved to the lines of "What a maroon" for putting himself in that situation in the first place.

The fact that people are glorifying this, and using it to encourage CCW holders to put themselves into situations where they would be likely to have to use their weapon is silly.

hardinparamedic:because it is unreasonable to think that Zimmerman would be completely honest about this situation, especially when it would not benefit him to do so

How do you figure? He's maintained that he acted in self-defense from day 1, he talked to police and was cooperative in the investigation. He was relieved when the investigators told him there was a recording of the incident. About what don't you think he's been completely honest?

Because I know human nature. And because without corroborating eyewitnesses to say "Yeah, it went down exactly like that", It's far safer to assume details were withheld or altered for the benefit of someone.

The sun is 92.46 million miles from Earth. People lie. These are facts.

hardinparamedic:Aristocles: About what don't you think he's been completely honest?

Because I know human nature. And because without corroborating eyewitnesses to say "Yeah, it went down exactly like that", It's far safer to assume details were withheld or altered for the benefit of someone.

The sun is 92.46 million miles from Earth. People lie. These are facts.

uh... so is that kinda like "guilty until proven innocent"? Cuz you know that's not the way things work, right?

DubyaHater:Wangiss: ikanreed: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: DubyaHater: TheEdibleSnuggie: AngryDragon: DubyaHater: These gun nuts must be rubbing one out daily on the thought of shooting someone and getting away with it. This must be the all-time fantasy. Oh, and thanks for sending George Zimmerman money and glorifying this act. Glad these people have no problem sleeping at night.

Sort of like the racists trying to literally make a federal case out of something that the police, the FBI, and a jury all agreed didn't happen? I'm seeing very little respect for the rule of law on their side.

Hence- why Zimmerman would need a gun. He, his wife, his family, his wife's family? They're all potential targets because out an outraged contingent who finds the only way justice can be served is through vengence. The man should be allowed to protect himself accordingly.

He should have thought about that before he decided to play cop, follow this kid, ignore the request by the call center, get out of his car, approach this kid and initiate an altercation. When I see suspicious behavior from my car, I make the intelligent decision and let the cops handle it.

That's kind of water over the dam, don't you think?

And that still doesn't justify the death threats against Zimmerman's family who's only guilt- is by association. But don't let that stop you from joining the lynch-mob, however.

I'm not joining any lynch mob. This is human nature however. When you take the law into your own hands, you risk the repercussions of violence against you and your family. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. It is reality however. If Zimmerman was too stupid to realize that, he shouldn't have owned a firearm in the first place. He certainly shouldn't own one now.

Regardless of the assertions of "self defense", this is one clear case that if there were one specific less legal gun in the country there would be one less corpse.

Because M was just going to stop banging Z's ...

Perhaps nothing. Perhaps a break-in (not necessarily by Trayvon). Perhaps a car accident.It needs to be okay for citizens to walk around in their neighborhoods without being battered. Even for Mr. Z.

AngryDragon:ikanreed: farkmedown: ikanreed: Princess Ryans Knickers: And if he gets involved in another shooting they will immediately be held liable in a civil court for damages.

Nope, gun sellers have explicit legal protection from the murders they enable in the U.S.

Inflammatory much?

Oh, wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, that's almost as bad as shooting a person, am I right? The second amendment serves no purpose.

Coming from someone who's second amendment rights protected his family during a home invasion, I can say without hesitation that you are wrong.

Uh huh. Sure. Confronting invaders with weapons is correlated with higher occupant injury rates and lower property loss rates in home invasions. So you gambled with your family and got lucky. Congratulations.

hardinparamedic:Farkage: If a women is getting raped and kills her rapist during the attack, do you ponder what would have happened if she hadn't left her house dressed so provocatively that day?

Comparing a rape with a situation where it is reasonable to believe that both parties actions contributed to the event's outcome as it did is pretty intellectually dishonest, dude.

So do you think that all someone has to do is contribute to an outcome and they deserve to be battered?Or do you think that everyone should be willing to take a pounding, trusting their assailant to stop before killing?

Wangiss:So do you think that all someone has to do is contribute to an outcome and they deserve to be battered?Or do you think that everyone should be willing to take a pounding, trusting their assailant to stop before killing?

Neither. I think when you escalate the situation from a point where you were able to flee, not in your own private dwelling, and where no one's life was in immediate danger - to the point where you have to use lethal force to defend yourself, you should not have civil protection and that the events leading up to this should be taken into account.

The fact that you pick a fight with someone doesn't mean you should have to get beaten to death, but it doesn't resolve you of the fact that you initiated the contact in the first place.

AngryDragon:farkmedown: AngryDragon: IRQ12: Everyone should be appalled at the DoJ getting involved in this, regardless of your feelings on the topic.

Well...unless you want the DoJ to act on how many FB likes or twitter votes they get on an incident.

The only way the DoJ should be involved or FB/Twitter be a factor is if the DoJ is going to investigate all the death threats and seditious posts that went up on social media. Any takers on the likelihood of that happening?

In a society that truly respects freedom of speech and thought, "sedition" is a null word. Nominally, it is null in the USA.

I'm fairly certain that inciting others to engage in a criminal and violent riot against innocent citizens because you are unhappy with a lawful court decision is the very poster child for seditious activity. I'm also certain that every civilized nation on the planet defines it as such.

hardinparamedic:Wangiss: So do you think that all someone has to do is contribute to an outcome and they deserve to be battered?Or do you think that everyone should be willing to take a pounding, trusting their assailant to stop before killing?

Neither. I think when you escalate the situation from a point where you were able to flee, not in your own private dwelling, and where no one's life was in immediate danger - to the point where you have to use lethal force to defend yourself, you should not have civil protection and that the events leading up to this should be taken into account.

The fact that you pick a fight with someone doesn't mean you should have to get beaten to death, but it doesn't resolve you of the fact that you initiated the contact in the first place.

ikanreed:We know why he did it. The supporters are the douchebags who are super enthusiastic about more guns and more killing of black people. You can go back through all the threads on this on fark. I've never been a "railroad zimmerman" person. But the active supporters are KKK wannabes. There's a line between "shiat that's tough; Zimmerman made a series of poor choices none of which were illegal or strictly immoral" and "fark yeah, zimmerman's in the right, that thug had it comming"

ikanreed:farkmedown: ikanreed: Princess Ryans Knickers: And if he gets involved in another shooting they will immediately be held liable in a civil court for damages.

Nope, gun sellers have explicit legal protection from the murders they enable in the U.S.

Inflammatory much?

Oh, wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, that's almost as bad as shooting a person, am I right? The second amendment serves no purpose.

If an automobile is used to kill someone deliberately, is the automaker liable? No. Automobiles are far deadlier weapons than civilian firearms.

The Second Amendment serves a very clear purpose that is often danced around. The British tried to disarm the colonists. They failed and one result of that failure is the entirety of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

I do not support armed rebellion, but I do affirm that the right to keep and bear arms, an individual right, is a right that must not be infringed. The results of failing to affirm a right to armed self-defense (or, in some cases, any self-defense at all) is clearly on display in the UK.

hardinparamedic:The fact that you pick a fight with someone doesn't mean you should have to get beaten to death, but it doesn't resolve you of the fact that you initiated the contact in the first place.

"Initiating the contact" is not the same thing as "picking the fight." Zimmerman did indeed initiate the contact, but we have no reason to believe he picked the fight. In fact, if we are to look at the preponderance of the evidence, it seems far more likely that he did not. Ergo, no reasonable blame.

hardinparamedic:Wangiss: Oh, okay. I thought we were talking about the Zimmerman case.

Remind me who made the initial confrontation, again? I must have missed the part about Trayvon Martin reaching through the window and dragging George Zimmerman behind a residence that was not his.

There is nothing to remind. People who refuse to accept Z/s testimony have absolutely nothing to go on in determining who assaulted whom initially. That's the big double question mark in this case. There are a lot of people who presume to know. Some of them heard it one way and assumed they were listening to a credible source. Some people beggar the question, claiming "that's what a racist like Z would do." But there is not one scrap of evidence beyond Z's own testimony that was ever presented in court that points to who started the fight.

farkmedown:ikanreed: farkmedown: ikanreed: Princess Ryans Knickers: And if he gets involved in another shooting they will immediately be held liable in a civil court for damages.

Nope, gun sellers have explicit legal protection from the murders they enable in the U.S.

Inflammatory much?

Oh, wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, that's almost as bad as shooting a person, am I right? The second amendment serves no purpose.

If an automobile is used to kill someone deliberately, is the automaker liable? No. Automobiles are far deadlier weapons than civilian firearms.

The Second Amendment serves a very clear purpose that is often danced around. The British tried to disarm the colonists. They failed and one result of that failure is the entirety of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

I do not support armed rebellion, but I do affirm that the right to keep and bear arms, an individual right, is a right that must not be infringed. The results of failing to affirm a right to armed self-defense (or, in some cases, any self-defense at all) is clearly on display in the UK.

If it was designed to be dangerous to be deadly, I would feel fine holding car manufacturers for deaths the cars cause. It would've driven H2s out of the market so fast.

Millennium:"Initiating the contact" is not the same thing as "picking the fight." Zimmerman did indeed initiate the contact, but we have no reason to believe he picked the fight. In fact, if we are to look at the preponderance of the evidence, it seems far more likely that he did not. Ergo, no reasonable blame.

For the purposes of a CCW/HCP holder, and for the purposes of civil responsibility, yeah it is. You see, most states don't have Florida's blanket civil protection statutes, and civil protection is based on a set of criteria that MUST be met in one form or another to come into play.

Even saying so much as an off word to someone can be taken as you initiated the fight.

Wangiss:People who refuse to accept Z/s testimony have absolutely nothing to go on in determining who assaulted whom initially. That's the big double question mark in this case. There are a lot of people who presume to know. Some of them heard it one way and assumed they were listening to a credible source

Unless you come forward with a credible witness that saw everything from beginning to end, you're going on the exact opposite spectrum of what you're accusing me of.

Sorry to break this to you, but outside of the former, there will be nothing that can shake skepticism over the events of that night.

Wangiss:But there is not one scrap of evidence beyond Z's own testimony that was ever presented in court that points to who started the fight.

You're also the kind of person that figures someone who is found not guilty is automatically innocent of all wrongdoing too, right?

hardinparamedic:Millennium: "Initiating the contact" is not the same thing as "picking the fight." Zimmerman did indeed initiate the contact, but we have no reason to believe he picked the fight. In fact, if we are to look at the preponderance of the evidence, it seems far more likely that he did not. Ergo, no reasonable blame.

For the purposes of a CCW/HCP holder, and for the purposes of civil responsibility, yeah it is. You see, most states don't have Florida's blanket civil protection statutes, and civil protection is based on a set of criteria that MUST be met in one form or another to come into play.

Even saying so much as an off word to someone can be taken as you initiated the fight.

Wangiss: People who refuse to accept Z/s testimony have absolutely nothing to go on in determining who assaulted whom initially. That's the big double question mark in this case. There are a lot of people who presume to know. Some of them heard it one way and assumed they were listening to a credible source

Unless you come forward with a credible witness that saw everything from beginning to end, you're going on the exact opposite spectrum of what you're accusing me of.

Sorry to break this to you, but outside of the former, there will be nothing that can shake skepticism over the events of that night.

Wangiss: But there is not one scrap of evidence beyond Z's own testimony that was ever presented in court that points to who started the fight.

You're also the kind of person that figures someone who is found not guilty is automatically innocent of all wrongdoing too, right?

I've qualified all my statements with phrases like "if the accepted testimony is to be believed" precisely because I don't know what happened. Z was acquitted by the people who examined the most evidence. I see no reason beyond personal bias to disagree with the acquittal. You can choose to accept Z's testimony, in which case he didn't start it. You can choose to reject his testimony, in which case you still have no concrete reason to believe he started it. Your pick. That doesn't make me an "automatically innocent of all wrongdoing" person.

DubyaHater:I'm not joining any lynch mob. This is human nature however. When you take the law into your own hands, you risk the repercussions of violence against you and your family. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. It is reality however. If Zimmerman was too stupid to realize that, he shouldn't have owned a firearm in the first place. He certainly shouldn't own one now.

So what you saying is, if you do it.....

He waits until his wife and kids are in the ground and then he goes after the rest of the mob. He kills their kids, he kills their wives, he kills their parents and their parents' friends. He burns down the houses they live in and the stores they work in, he kills people that owe them money. And like that he was gone. Underground. Nobody has ever seen him since. He becomes a myth, a spook story that criminals tell their kids at night. "Rat on your pop, and Keyser Soze will get you." And no-one ever really believes.

stampylives:Farkage: If a women is getting raped and kills her rapist during the attack, do you ponder what would have happened if she hadn't left her house dressed so provocatively that day?

if a woman goes out, follows a guy around, confronts him, grabs his penis and crams it intoher vagina, then decrees it rape; then no, i don't think she should have the right to shoot her attacker.

yes, even if the guy happened to be a jerk.

That would be the equivalent of Zimmerman following Trayvon around, not losing him, not having him circle back, grabbing Trayvon's fist and punching himself in the face with it followed by using Trayvon's hands to slam his own head into the ground, wouldn't it?

hardinparamedic:Millennium: "Initiating the contact" is not the same thing as "picking the fight." Zimmerman did indeed initiate the contact, but we have no reason to believe he picked the fight. In fact, if we are to look at the preponderance of the evidence, it seems far more likely that he did not. Ergo, no reasonable blame.

For the purposes of a CCW/HCP holder, and for the purposes of civil responsibility, yeah it is. You see, most states don't have Florida's blanket civil protection statutes, and civil protection is based on a set of criteria that MUST be met in one form or another to come into play.

Even saying so much as an off word to someone can be taken as you initiated the fight.

I don't think I've seen this argument before, and it's interesting. Do more information on these statutes, or a link to them?

Wangiss: People who refuse to accept Z/s testimony have absolutely nothing to go on in determining who assaulted whom initially. That's the big double question mark in this case. There are a lot of people who presume to know. Some of them heard it one way and assumed they were listening to a credible source

Unless you come forward with a credible witness that saw everything from beginning to end, you're going on the exact opposite spectrum of what you're accusing me of.

Not the opposite end of the spectrum: the very same thing. It goes off in a different direction, but it's still looking at the unknown and saying "I know."

Sorry to break this to you, but outside of the former, there will be nothing that can shake skepticism over the events of that night.

I'm not sure how much of an issue skepticism is right now. I'm not seeing much in the way of questioning the events presented by the defense: what I'm seeing is summary denial. Certainly I've seen no "alternate" version put forward with stronger backing, and most have even weaker backing. That's not skepticism.

Wangiss: But there is not one scrap of evidence beyond Z's own testimony that was ever presented in court that points to who started the fight.

You're also the kind of person that figures someone who is found not guilty is automatically innocent of all wrongdoing too, right?

I don't know about Wangiss, but I'm not. I do, however, believe that it raises the bar for people who would treat them as guilty anyway: one must either show greater proof than was allowed at trial (e.g. OJ Simpson), or show that the trial itself was botched (e.g. Casey Anthony). Few of the pro-conviction folks even try to do this, and of those that do, most are easy to shut down with logical arguments.

Your arguments on the civil-protection statutes are interesting, though. I'd like to know more about them. Also, why do you think the prosecution didn't push this angle more strongly in the trial?

ikanreed:S10Calade: vrax: S10Calade: He did not commit an act of violence or murder anyone. He defended himself.

Oh, FFS, Zimmerman most certainly did commit an act of violence. Now, that may have been in self-defense, but don't pretend that he hugged a hole in Martin's chest when you say "he defended himself".

You really need to look up the definition of violence. He was defending himself, there was no intent of violence.

vi·o·lence(vn.1.Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

Yep, he sure didn't defend himself by damaging anyone. Yep. That means to the end of safety just vanishes in a puff of smoke.

It's all about intent but obviously that's beyond you. He intended to stop some jack-hole kid from beating his head in, not "damage" as you say. Enough of all the bleeding heart garbage. Get over it people. It was justified. I would have done exactly the same thing and sleep just fine knowing I did.

S10Calade:ikanreed: S10Calade: vrax: S10Calade: He did not commit an act of violence or murder anyone. He defended himself.

Oh, FFS, Zimmerman most certainly did commit an act of violence. Now, that may have been in self-defense, but don't pretend that he hugged a hole in Martin's chest when you say "he defended himself".

You really need to look up the definition of violence. He was defending himself, there was no intent of violence.

vi·o·lence(vn.1.Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

Yep, he sure didn't defend himself by damaging anyone. Yep. That means to the end of safety just vanishes in a puff of smoke.

It's all about intent but obviously that's beyond you. He intended to stop some jack-hole kid from beating his head in, not "damage" as you say. Enough of all the bleeding heart garbage. Get over it people. It was justified. I would have done exactly the same thing and sleep just fine knowing I did.

It's hilarious that you are so head-up-ass with the need to see this whole thing as a righteous kill that you are completely missing the point.

vrax:S10Calade: ikanreed: S10Calade: vrax: S10Calade: He did not commit an act of violence or murder anyone. He defended himself.

Oh, FFS, Zimmerman most certainly did commit an act of violence. Now, that may have been in self-defense, but don't pretend that he hugged a hole in Martin's chest when you say "he defended himself".

You really need to look up the definition of violence. He was defending himself, there was no intent of violence.

vi·o·lence(vn.1.Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

Yep, he sure didn't defend himself by damaging anyone. Yep. That means to the end of safety just vanishes in a puff of smoke.

It's all about intent but obviously that's beyond you. He intended to stop some jack-hole kid from beating his head in, not "damage" as you say. Enough of all the bleeding heart garbage. Get over it people. It was justified. I would have done exactly the same thing and sleep just fine knowing I did.

It's hilarious that you are so head-up-ass with the need to see this whole thing as a righteous kill that you are completely missing the point.

Honestly, it feels like it's reaffirming my feeling earlier, that Zimmerman's most ardent defenders harbor secret fantasies of killing minorities themselves. Re-read what he said, and pretend he hasn't imagined himself going through the process of "totally justifiably" killing black people attacking him in his head at least a few hundred times. You can smell the adolescent power fantasies coming off every word.

Wangiss:Is there some evidence you have in your possession that would change the minds of 6-12 members of a jury? Is there something you think they didn't factor in? I think it's too late.

Apparently you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm not allowed to have mine. And I'm making an argument from a civil responsibility prospective, not a criminal. A shooting can be entirely criminally justifiable, but the negligence of the individual can have lead up to that point.

Millennium:Your arguments on the civil-protection statutes are interesting, though. I'd like to know more about them. Also, why do you think the prosecution didn't push this angle more strongly in the trial?

My arguments on civil protection are made from the basis of my understanding of the law as I was taught when I took a HCP in Tennessee. Civil Protection either requires you to have been accosted with no preceding contact (i.e. someone walked up and shoved a gun in your face), or someone forcibly entered a dwelling or vehicle which you have a legal right to be in (i.e. kicked in your door, or tried to pull you out of your car). Which I honestly agree with. Florida, on the other hand, imposes blanket civil immunity if a shooting is ruled justified despite the events leading up to it.

The prosecution didn't push that angle IMHO, because at that point, it didn't matter from a criminal prospective - but towards a civil one. You are under no obligation to get beat to death because you picked a fight. Your only obligation is to try to clearly disengage, or be able to prove you attempted to do so. Once you do that, and the fight continues, you have grounds for lethal force.

My opinion is that you should still be able to be held civilly responsible in that case.

ikanreed:vrax: S10Calade: ikanreed: S10Calade: vrax: S10Calade: He did not commit an act of violence or murder anyone. He defended himself.

Oh, FFS, Zimmerman most certainly did commit an act of violence. Now, that may have been in self-defense, but don't pretend that he hugged a hole in Martin's chest when you say "he defended himself".

You really need to look up the definition of violence. He was defending himself, there was no intent of violence.

vi·o·lence(vn.1.Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

Yep, he sure didn't defend himself by damaging anyone. Yep. That means to the end of safety just vanishes in a puff of smoke.

It's all about intent but obviously that's beyond you. He intended to stop some jack-hole kid from beating his head in, not "damage" as you say. Enough of all the bleeding heart garbage. Get over it people. It was justified. I would have done exactly the same thing and sleep just fine knowing I did.

It's hilarious that you are so head-up-ass with the need to see this whole thing as a righteous kill that you are completely missing the point.

Honestly, it feels like it's reaffirming my feeling earlier, that Zimmerman's most ardent defenders harbor secret fantasies of killing minorities themselves. Re-read what he said, and pretend he hasn't imagined himself going through the process of "totally justifiably" killing black people attacking him in his head at least a few hundred times. You can smell the adolescent power fantasies coming off every word.

You have to wonder. I was making a simple point about Zimmerman's supposed non-violent self-defense. I guess that's too much to handle.

It reminds me of the time I tried to point out that football was a violent sport. Yeah, rabid football fans apparently can't process that. The injured players understand. Fans? No!

S10Calade:ikanreed: S10Calade: vrax: S10Calade: He did not commit an act of violence or murder anyone. He defended himself.

Oh, FFS, Zimmerman most certainly did commit an act of violence. Now, that may have been in self-defense, but don't pretend that he hugged a hole in Martin's chest when you say "he defended himself".

You really need to look up the definition of violence. He was defending himself, there was no intent of violence.

vi·o·lence(vn.1.Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

Yep, he sure didn't defend himself by damaging anyone. Yep. That means to the end of safety just vanishes in a puff of smoke.

It's all about intent but obviously that's beyond you. He intended to stop some jack-hole kid from beating his head in, not "damage" as you say. Enough of all the bleeding heart garbage. Get over it people. It was justified. I would have done exactly the same thing and sleep just fine knowing I did.

Careful with your wording there. There are people who assume that "I had to kill him" means "He needed killing," and a lot of them will read something into your words that I don't think you meant.

By the time Zimmerman pulled his gun, one of those two was doomed. The clincher here is in Jeantel's testimony and later interviews, and stating (I believe with reasonable certainty) that what Martin was going for was "just bash." In other words, when Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement, he was acting from ignorance, not malice: Zimmerman wasn't supposed to die.

The problem with this is that even though Zimmerman wasn't supposed to die, he almost certainly would have: head plus concrete does not equal a happy ending. And truth be told, Martin really should have known better. But he didn't, and so he wouldn't have stopped, not because of malice, but because it wouldn't have occurred to him that he had to stop.

This is a sad story. We should feel sorry for Trayvon Martin. We should also feel sorry for George Zimmerman. There are no heroes or villains here.

hardinparamedic:Wangiss: Is there some evidence you have in your possession that would change the minds of 6-12 members of a jury? Is there something you think they didn't factor in? I think it's too late.

Apparently you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm not allowed to have mine. And I'm making an argument from a civil responsibility prospective, not a criminal. A shooting can be entirely criminally justifiable, but the negligence of the individual can have lead up to that point.

You're entitled to an opinion. This is what it looks like when someone disagrees with it. Did it seem to you like I was trying to silence you forcibly somehow?

Millennium:This is a sad story. We should feel sorry for Trayvon Martin. We should also feel sorry for George Zimmerman. There are no heroes or villains here.

Well, the douchebags in the article are villains, but that comes from a terrible black and white(hah) view of the world. Zimmerman himself at worst made some moderately bad choices, and likely made a racist judgement about what Martin was doing in the neighborhood. Most people are just trying to get through their life.

hardinparamedic:Wangiss: Oh, okay. I thought we were talking about the Zimmerman case.

Remind me who made the initial confrontation, again? I must have missed the part about Trayvon Martin reaching through the window and dragging George Zimmerman behind a residence that was not his.

He didn't have to, all he had to do was walk inside his daddy fiancee house, just walk inside. But instead he decided to turn around and confront Zimmerman. Even then, Martin could have just asked "Why you following me for?" without getting violent, but he didn't.